This invention is related to commonly-assigned U.S. patent application Ser. No. 09/372,377 filed on the same day, of W. Chase for xe2x80x9cSystem for Identifying Connotative Meaning;xe2x80x9d commonly-assigned U.S. patent application Ser. No. 09/372,243 filed on the same day, of W. Chase for xe2x80x9cInteractive Connotative Dictionary System;xe2x80x9d commonly-assigned U.S. patent application Ser. No. 09/372,244 filed on the same day, of W. Chase for xe2x80x9cInteractive Connotative Thesaurus System;xe2x80x9d commonly-assigned U.S. patent application Ser. No. 09/372,737 filed on the same day, of W. Chase for xe2x80x9cSystem for Connotative Analysis of Discourse.xe2x80x9d The content of all such applications are incorporated herein by reference and made a part hereof.
This invention relates to a system for quantifying the intensity of a connotative meaning, and more particularly to a system for quantifying the intensity of emotional connotations associated with various words and phrases among multiple affective dimensions.
The use of ideas, images or other symbols to stand for objects or events is called symbolic representation. In the context of human language symbolic representation is achieved using words. The facility with symbolic representation to form languages distinguishes humankind from animals. Language is an abstract, rule-governed system of arbitrary symbols that can be combined in countless ways to communicate information. All languages include a system of phonology (i.e., set of sounds), semantics (i.e., word, phrase and sentence meanings), morphology (i.e., rules for combining smallest meaningful units to form or alter words), syntax (i.e., ways in which words are organized into phrases and sentences) and pragmatics (i.e., rules governing a conversation and social use of language).
The use of language enables humankind to develop advanced cognitive abilities. Cognitive development relates to the changes in a person""s memory, thinking, use of language and other mental skills as they develop from infants to adults. Humans develop a certain degree of cognitive competence. In addition to such cognitive competence, humans also display and experience feelings, emotions and moods. In particular, our emotional state or the emotional state we desire to elicit can influence our choice of words. Every human language enables people to communicate both intellectually and emotionally because words and phrases convey both cognitive and affective meaning. xe2x80x98Affectivexe2x80x99 means to be influenced by or result from emotions.
Linguistics is the scientific study of language. Semantics is the branch of linguistics that deals with the study of the relationship between words or phrases and their meanings. Of particular significance here are the contrasting linguistic terms, denotation and connotation. xe2x80x98Denotationxe2x80x99 is a particular meaning of a symbol. xe2x80x98Connotationxe2x80x99 is an idea or meaning suggested by or associated with a word or phrase. Thus, xe2x80x98denotexe2x80x99 describes the relation between a word or phrase and the thing it conventionally names, whereas xe2x80x98connotexe2x80x99 describes the relation between the word or phrase and the images or associations it evokes. As used herein a denotation is an objective, cognitive meaning which refers to the direct relationship between a term and the object, idea or action it designates. As used herein, a connotation is a subjective, affective meaning which refers to the emotive and associative aspect of a term.
The denotative meanings of words have been systematically codified into definitions and collected together to form dictionaries, thesauruses and related denotative language references. However, the codification of connotative meanings has not been achieved. Consider, for example, a dictionary which provides the following denotative meaning for the word xe2x80x98pubxe2x80x99: xe2x80x9ca building providing alcoholic drinks for consumption on the premisesxe2x80x9d (Oxford Dictionary). However, the word xe2x80x98pubxe2x80x99 simultaneously conveys a host of emotional connotations, such as merriment, pleasure, cheerfulness, perhaps some sadness, and so on. Similarly, words such as xe2x80x98summerxe2x80x99, xe2x80x98lovexe2x80x99, and xe2x80x98melodyxe2x80x99 have a variety of positive emotional connotative associations for most people, while words such as xe2x80x98cancerxe2x80x99, xe2x80x98rapexe2x80x99, and xe2x80x98homelessxe2x80x99 have negative emotional connotations for most people. In all cases, the associated connotations are not systematically accessible using any known language reference resource or tool.
The reason for the absence of codification of connotative meaning is that, while words readily evoke emotional connotations, the converse is not true: emotional connotations are not easily codified using words. Unlike denotative meaning, affective meaning does not naturally lend itself to systematic word-symbol description. Emotions are felt, not thought, so the relationship between a word and its associated connotative content, while real, is not codifiable using the relatively straightforward methods employed by lexicographers in fashioning denotative definitions. Accordingly, there is a need for a connotation language reference tool and a system for codifying the connotative content of such a tool.
Not only is it desirable to codify connotative meaning, it is desirable to quantify the intensity associated with a connotation. Some words or phrases evoke stronger responses than others. Some words or phrases are more activity oriented. In the 1950s, Charles Osgood, an American psychologist developed a method of constructing bipolar scales based on semantic opposites, such as xe2x80x9cgood-badxe2x80x9d, xe2x80x9csoft-hardxe2x80x9d, xe2x80x9cfast-slow,xe2x80x9d xe2x80x9cclean-dirty,xe2x80x9d xe2x80x9cvaluable-worthless,xe2x80x9d xe2x80x9cfair-unfair,xe2x80x9d and so on. Osgood called these scales xe2x80x9csemantic differentialxe2x80x9d scales because they differentiated attitudinal intensity based on a person""s subjective understanding of the connotative meanings of words. Osgood et al. explored large amounts of data provided by students who evaluated numerous words and phrases on numerous semantic differential scales. The outcome of Osgood""s investigations was a description of the existence of xe2x80x9csemantic space,xe2x80x9d three measurable underlying attitudinal dimensions that proved in subsequent research to be robustly identifiable across other languages and cultures. Osgood named these dimensions Evaluation, Power, and Activity (EPA). Experimentation by many investigators around the world confirmed the reality of semantic space and its cross-cultural validity (Japan, Scandinavia, Germany, Ireland etc.).
The semantic differential is a method for measuring the meaning of an object to an individual. It may also be thought of as a series of attitude scales.
A subject is asked to rate a given concept (for example, xe2x80x98Irishxe2x80x99, xe2x80x98Republicanxe2x80x99, xe2x80x98wifexe2x80x99, xe2x80x98me as I amxe2x80x99) on a series of seven-point bipolar rating scales. Any conceptxe2x80x94whether it is a political issue, a person, an institution, a work of artxe2x80x94can be rated. Subgroups of the scales can be summed up to yield scores that are interpreted as indicating the individual""s position on three underlying dimensions of attitude toward the object being rated. These dimensions have been identified by using factor-analytic procedures in examining the responses of many individuals concerning many concepts or objects. It has been found that three subgroups measure the following three dimensions of attitude: (1) the individual""s evaluation of the object or concept being rated, corresponding to the favorable-unfavorable dimension in more traditional attitude scales; (2) the individual""s perception of the potency or power of the object or concept; and (3) the individual""s perception of the activity of the object or concept. (See Kidder, L. H., xe2x80x9cResearch Methods in Social Relations;xe2x80x9d 1981).
The problem with the semantic differential technique is that it does not distinguish beyond a single evaluative continuum, with positive attitude at one end of the scale through negative attitude at the other end. That is, it does not actually identify any individual emotions. Moreover, although several short xe2x80x9csemantic differential dictionariesxe2x80x9d have been developed (known in the literature as semantic xe2x80x9catlasesxe2x80x9d because they are analogous to xe2x80x9cmapsxe2x80x9d of semantic space), consisting of 500 to 1,500 words with EPA scores for each word, the technique of semantic differential is not associated with any system or method for codifying the words of any given language, even on a single affective variable, Accordingly, there is a need for a system of quantifying connotative meanings.
According to the invention, a system for identifying connotative meaning of words or phrases is implemented. A given word or phrase has its connotative meaning determined for a given denotative context. A data base is formed having multiple records. Each record corresponds to a term (i.e., word or phrase) and its denotative context. Zero, one or more connotative associations are defined for each record.
According to another aspect of the invention, each record is evaluated by a plurality of connotative judges for a connotative association within a given emotional category. There are a predefined plurality of emotional categories established for evaluating connotative associations of terms. Within each emotional category there are a plurality of emotional descriptors.
According to one embodiment of the invention, there are eight emotional categories predefined for the English language: affection/friendliness, amusement/excitement, enjoyment/elation, contentment/gratitude, sadness/grief, anger/loathing, fear/uneasiness, and humiliation/shame. A plurality of descriptors are predefined for each emotional category.
According to another aspect of the invention, each connotative judge examines the denotative context of a given word or phrase and selects an emotional descriptor which the judge associates with such word or phrase in the given denotative context. The judge is given the emotional descriptors from a single category and selects the primary emotional descriptor, or both a primary and a secondary emotional descriptor which the judge associates with the word or phrase. Alternatively, the judge may indicate that none of the descriptors are associated with the word or phrase, or that the judge is unfamiliar with the word or phrase and its denotative context. In a separate analysis the judge is given the same or a different record, When the same record is presented, the judge is given a different set of emotional descriptors from a different emotional category. Again, the judge selects the primary emotional descriptor, or both a primary and a secondary emotional descriptor which the judge associates with the word or phrase. As with the prior record, the judge may indicate that none of the descriptors are associated with the word or phrase, or that the judge is unfamiliar with the word or phrase and its denotative context.
According to another aspect of the invention, for each record for which the judge selects an emotional descriptor, the judge also enters an intensity rating for such descriptor.
According to another aspect of the invention, a method of calibrating the xe2x80x98judgesxe2x80x99 intensity ratings is performed. When a judge evaluates records for connotative meaning for a given emotional category of emotional descriptors, the judge also reviews a list of anchor words or phrases (i.e., anchor terms) for such emotional category. There is a list of anchor terms for each intensity rating for such category. The judge selects one or more of the anchor terms for a given intensity rating which the judge feels most accurately corresponds to the given intensity rating. The judge does this for each intensity rating in each emotional category for which the judge is determining connotative meaning on a given questionnaire.
According to another aspect of the invention, each record is evaluated by a statistically significant number of judges for each one of the emotional categories. The results are processed to evaluate which emotional descriptors are most often associated with each given record. Anomalous results are purged (e.g., when the judge fills in responses at random rather than doing the mental work solicited; when the judge codes in a lot of alternative responses such as xe2x80x98no connotative associationxe2x80x99 or xe2x80x98Unfamiliar with denotative contextxe2x80x99). In a specific embodiment a statistical analysis is performed to assure that the selected emotional descriptors were not selected by chance. Where the emotional descriptor was selected enough times that the probability indicates it was not selected by chance, then the emotional descriptor is accepted as a connotative association for the word or phrase in the corresponding denotative context. Such association is retained in the database as part of the record for the word or phrase and its denotative meaning. Note that there may be 0, 1 or more connotative associations with any given record.
According to another aspect of the invention, the connotative associations are continuously updated, either at prescribed intervals or on an ongoing basis, such as through a World Wide Web site. In this way, connotative judges are able to supply data continuously, with turnover of connotative judges easily managed, and the database, particularly the connotative component, kept up to date with the changing times.
According to another aspect of the invention, a panel of judges is selected from a pool of judges to respond to a questionnaire. The questionnaire includes a plurality of records and allows selection of 0 or 1xe2x80x94or in some embodiments 2xe2x80x94emotional descriptors to be associated with any given record. The questionnaire also includes the anchor words selected in effect to xe2x80x98calibratexe2x80x99 the judges responses. The choices of emotional descriptors are limited to those in one emotional category. The same or a different panel of judges then evaluates the same plurality of records for a different emotional category. Eventually, each record is evaluated for each of the emotional categories by a desired number of connotative judges.
By practicing the above method and system of the present invention, a complete and accurate connotative language reference map and database is constructed in any language, which then can be used to construct connotative equivalents of denotative language reference resources, such as connotative dictionaries, connotative thesauruses, and connotative text analysis tools.
These and other aspects and advantages of the invention will be better understood by reference to the following detailed description taken in conjunction with the accompanying drawings.